NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48534

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 11.9 KB | 227 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!rigel.econ.uga.edu!mills
From: [e-mail] (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:43:47 GMT
Lines: 215

> O'Dwyer
># Ferrari
>#> Kalb
>#>> rocker
>#>>> R. Pitts

>#>>>If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
>#>>>one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they
>#>>>DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and
>#>>>probably do fall into the UNPLANNED or rather LACK OF PLANNING
>#>>>catagory or even into the UNEDUCATED one.  Families needs to teach their
>#>>>children (males and females) how to control their body - don't just let
>#>>>them run wild and then excuse their actions.  The error of thinking
>#>>>that pregancy is unwilling is that the action (the sex act) is so
>#>>>trivialized and young girls think they need to give themselves to
>#>>>some supposed man to gain acceptance.  Everyone needs to learn self-control
>#>>>and self-acceptance.  One doesn't really gain either by having sex.

>#>>For someone who professes to be a Christian, you sound terribly
>#>>full of hate.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is so.

>#>Would you explain how the posting you comment on displays hate?

>#1.  The reason for allowing rape victims to have abortions, when one wants
>#    to ban almost all other abortions, is because in that case the woman
>#    did not consent to sex and therefore should not have to bear its
>#    consequences.  The converse of this, of course, is that women who have
>#    sex willingly should have to bear any bad consequences; i.e., women
>#    who willingly have sex are bad and should be punished.

>Strawman.  Pitts may well believe this, but it's neither said nor implied by
>the text above which is denounced as hateful.

Then why did Pitts bother to differentiate between "rape and incest victims"
and women who got pregnant in other, i.e. consensual, ways?  The result
(pregnancy) is the same; there is no qualitative difference between fetuses
conceived consensually or non-consensually.  So why does Pitts see a
difference wrt abortion for the two situations?  Perhaps you'd care to
speculate.

>#2.  The above post assumes that anyone who becomes pregnant unwillingly
>#    has "run wild" and not controlled her body; that all unwanted
>#    pregnancy, except that which results from rape, is the result of
>#    wanton and reckless disreagard for the welfare of the fetus(es) that
>#    may result.

>The first statement is self-evidently true, even if it is couched in extreme
>language.

Oh, really.  So I suppose that even a married couple whose birth control
fails has simply "run wild" - whoops, I mean the WOMAN has run wild.
Neither you nor Pitts seems to believe that the MAN could fail to "control
his body," while you believe women fail to control their bodies all the
time.  Would you care to modify your statement to include men, or are you
as misogynistic as you seem?

>The second statement is entirely plausible, and not hateful
>either.

I find it hateful to honestly believe that anyone really doesn't care if a
pregnancy results from sex, or to care about the fetus itself, unless there
is substantial evidence to back up that belief.  And even then it would only
apply to that one particular person, not an entire and unknown class of
people.

Just as it is hateful to stereotype, say, African-Americans as not caring
about their possible children, it is hateful to stereotype every person
who has voluntary sex for any purpose other than procreation as not caring
about their possible children.  I, personally, can vouch that people do
care about their pregnancies, even unwanted ones.

>#3.  The above post assumes that an unwanted pregnancy is somehow the fault
>#    of the parents of the partners.  If the couple is assumed to be too
>#    young to be responsible for their actions, Richard can always direct
>#    his venom at the next convenient scapegoat - their parents.

>Blame = venom?  Is anything ever anybody's fault?

Sometimes.  But I find it just as ludicrous to blame the parents of kids
with an unwanted pregnancy, as to blame the kids' teachers or friends,
unless the parents have been grossly negligent in informing them about
sex or preaching abstinence.

>#4.  Richard only acknowledges one reason, in this post, why unwanted
>#    pregnancies occur (besides rape and incest): "young girls think they
>#    need to give themselves to some supposed man to gain acceptance."  The
>#    fact that this is the only reason that Richard saw fit to mention for
>#    pregnancy (as a result of consensual intercourse), shows that he must
>#    think it is a very prevalent reason.  This is another blame-the-woman
>#    attitude - the woman shouldn't have had sex.  Of course, Richard fails
>#    to mention any wrong reasons for men to have sex; he does not, for
>#    instance, say "men should not have sex for the purpose of appearing
>#    macho."  Richard may indeed feel that way, but the fact that he chose
>#    only to berate WOMEN'S (or rather, girls') reasons for having sex
>#    testifies to a misogynistic viewpoint.

>True, he doesn't give mention to wrong reasons for men.  He doesn't mention
>jews either - is he an anti-semite?  He does say 'everyone should learn
>self-control' above, and 'everyone' includes men. When do we get to the hate
>part?

"... the fact that he chose only to berate WOMEN'S (or rather, girls')
reasons for having sex testifies to a misogynistic viewpoint."  That's the
"hate part," O'Dwyer.  In case you haven't taken sex ed yet, it doesn't
take one Jew and one Gentile, or one black and one white, or one Catholic
and one Protestant, to make a baby.  It does, however, take one man and
one woman to make a baby.  The fact that Pitts left one-half of the
equation out of his rant entirely shows that he doesn't think the left-out
part bears enough of the responsibility to even be worth mentioning.
Conveniently, that part of the equation is the part that would require
Pitts - and you - to bear responsibility as well.

>#5.  The above post seems to assume that only children have unwanted
>#    pregnancies ("Families should teach their children ... young girls
>#    need ...").  This belies an assumption that unwanted pregnancy is a
>#    problem only for immature, irresponsible people; and the converse,
>#    that mature, responsible adults do not have unwanted pregnancies.

>True, but that's not hateful either.

I think it's pretty hateful to assume that IF a woman has an unwanted
pregnancy, THEREFORE she is immature and irresponsible.  Again, that
is stereotyping an entire class of people, and I find that every bit
as hateful as racism.

>#6.  Abortion is portrayed as an easy way out of a "LACK OF PLANNING."  It
>#    is not shown as the responsible, mature decision that it is.  All women
>#    who have made the choice to abort are dismissed as "UNEDUCATED" people
>#    who "run wild and then excuse their actions."

>If you think that abortion is always a responsible, mature decision you
>are as deluded as Pitts is. Still no hate.

I think that any way the woman chooses to deal with an unwanted pregnancy -
adoption, keeping, or abortion - is usually as "responsible, mature
decision."  I personally believe, in fact, that women who choose abortion
or adoption are likelier to have researched and thought deeply about
their decision than women who decide to keep the baby.  I don't believe
any of these three decisions is ALWAYS a responsible, mature decision.
The hate, again, is shown in the stereotype - "ALL women who have made
the choice to abort are dismissed as 'UNEDUCATED' people ..."

>#7.  The entire sex act itself is berated, and those who engage in it
>#    (presumably for any reason other than procreation) have failed to
>#    "control their bodies."  As mentioned above, the only reason Richard
>#    mentioned for consensual sex is peer pressure.  He also says, "Everyone
>#    needs to learn self-control," i.e., that engaging in sex is fundamentally
>#    indecent, and the urge to do so should be controlled.  He sees fit only
>#    to mention bad things about sex, without any recognition that sex is
>#    most often physically and emotionally beneficial to both partners.  He
>#    does not seem to recognize that sex has any good qualities whatsoever.

>True, and this is still not hateful.  It's also interesting to note that
>pro-abortionists (as distinct from pro-choicers) are full of vim and vigour
>when portraying abortion as a triumph over biology.  But to triumph over
>sexual biology is primitive and hateful.  Maybe biology isn't all bad.

Quote the source which made you believe that "pro-abortionists ... [portray]
abortion as a triumph over biology."  I have never heard that claim in my
life, and I've been involved in pro-choice for years.

It would not be hateful for Pitts to be of the opinion that sex is indecent
and gross, as long as he keeps his beliefs about the sex act distinct from
his beliefs about people who have sex.  In other words, I have no problem
with the statement, "Sex is disgusting and I'm never going to do it except
to make a baby."  But I do have a problem with the statement, "Since the
sex act itself is disgusting, everyone who has sex voluntarily, except for
the purpose of procreation, is, as a class, disgusting."  I believe Pitts
crossed that line.

>#8.  Richard claims that "the MAJORITY" of women who have unwanted pregnancies
>#    are not incest or rape victims.  How does he know this?  One out of every
>#    six (or some number close to that) women in the U.S. is raped in her
>#    lifetime.  Millions more women are raped each year than the 1.25 million
>#    who have abortions, yet Richard prefers to believe that the majority
>#    of unwanted pregnancies result from lack of responsible planning.

>One of you must be wrong, but which one is hateful?

I think it's more hateful to believe that the pregnant woman got that way
because she is an airheaded floozie who can't control herself, than to
assume that she tried to prevent the pregnancy, failed, and is now making
the decision she feels is right.

>#9.  Richard's writing is unclear at best, but I interpret the sentence, "The
>#    error of thinking that pregnancy is unwilling is that the action (the
>#    sex act) ..." to mean, "It is an error to think that the woman is
>#    unwilling to become pregnant, since she engaged in the sex act, which
>#    itself has become so trivialized ..."  This implies strongly that women
>#    who have unwanted pregnancies secretly wished to become pregnant.  This
>#    is a very misogynistic assumption.

>Your strawman interpretation is - surprise, surprise - palpable nonsense.

You may think my interpretation is false, but I see you failed to come
up with an alternative.  I hardly think you are justified to dismiss my
contention out of hand when you can't even advocate anything else.

>#10. It is hateful to assume that many women, or even teenage girls, are a
>#    bunch of mindless zombies who cave in to society's "trivialization of
>#    sex" without a thought as to the possible consequences.

>No it isn't.  And not to entertain the idea is stupid.

I'm sorry you think that women and teenage girls are a bunch of mindless
zombies.  I'm sorry that your girlfriend or wife, your daughter, your
mother, and all of your female friends and coworkers are a bunch of
mindless zombies, but that does explain why you hate women so much.  And
perhaps, since every woman or girl you have ever known is a mindless
zombie, you are justified in having such a low opinion of women.  Maybe
that will change if you ever meet a female human who is not a mindless
zombie.  Again, my condolences.

--
Ferrari ([e-mail])